Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 117

Thread: Obama slams Holocaust deniers at concentration camp

  1. #31
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Obama slams Holocaust deniers at concentration camp

    Quote Originally Posted by Smoke[MaxX] View Post
    This is strictly an assumption, but I assume that he is referring to the fact that Japan didn't start WWII. They were on the side of the Germans and so, in a way, had to bomb Pearl Harbor. The risk was if they did not, then the US could potentially interfere in the war and dominate. If they did, they could potentially knock out the US Pacific fleet. Of course, that stirred up a hornet's nest and we knew where that went.
    I would agree that Japan did not start WWII. However, this is what he said:

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Libman View Post
    Many other things we are taught about World War II are total lies - that the Japanese initiated aggression against USA first,
    His comment is not about WWII, but about the initiating of aggression between Japan and the US. I would like to see some substantiation for his position.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  2. #32
    Professor
    WillRockwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    07-10-10 @ 09:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,950

    Re: Obama slams Holocaust deniers at concentration camp

    Quote Originally Posted by Smoke[MaxX] View Post
    This is strictly an assumption, but I assume that he is referring to the fact that Japan didn't start WWII. They were on the side of the Germans and so, in a way, had to bomb Pearl Harbor. The risk was if they did not, then the US could potentially interfere in the war and dominate. If they did, they could potentially knock out the US Pacific fleet. Of course, that stirred up a hornet's nest and we knew where that went.
    Japan wanted an empire, regardless of what Germany was doing. They cared very little for Hitler's ambitions, their national ego left no room for the aspirations of Germans. Pearl Harbor was an effort to buy time by knocking out the American navy, and it worked. There was no "WW2" until Japan attacked, just a war in Europe. Nobody started WW2, everyone joined the party until it became a World War.

  3. #33
    Every day I'm hustlin'..
    Lerxst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Nationwide...
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,435

    Re: Obama slams Holocaust deniers at concentration camp

    Quote Originally Posted by WillRockwell View Post
    Japan wanted an empire, regardless of what Germany was doing. They cared very little for Hitler's ambitions, their national ego left no room for the aspirations of Germans. Pearl Harbor was an effort to buy time by knocking out the American navy, and it worked. There was no "WW2" until Japan attacked, just a war in Europe. Nobody started WW2, everyone joined the party until it became a World War.
    Actually I'll put a bit of a twist on this. Japan, who was our ally during and after World War I had aspirations that were very much like that of their Western allies. Japan occupied Manchuria as a buffer zone of sorts when civil war engulfed China. Back then this was not unheard of and the west had set the example for expansionism and empire building. In 1937 they launched a full scale invasion of China. Japan was doing to China what Britain did to India more or less.

    When the French surrendered in 1940 Japan sent forces into French Indochina. We put an embargo of steel and scrap metal against them. Then when Hitler attacked Russia they moved forces into Southern Indochina and we froze all their assets.

    FDR never intended to cut off oil to Japan because he knew that would place their nation in a state of crisis and most likely trigger a move on the oil fields of the Dutch East Indies, and also be viewed as an act of economic warfare. However Dean Acheson wrote up the sanctions so that they did in fact prohibit Japanese purchase of U.S. oil. FDR was too politically leveraged at that point to retract the sanctions.

    So, what did Japan do? They went for the Dutch East Indies and made a move to eliminate the one force that they felt threatened their venture. The U.S. fleet at Pearl Harbor.

    The rest is history.

    You had a large multi-front war in Europe and you had Japan seizing territory at break neck speed in the far east. Without a doubt these forces had to be checked lest they should engulf the entire world at some point anyway.

    I believe you had World War in progress with the different participants starting at different times. The U.S. would have gotten involved had Japan not attacked, I truly believe this.
    *insert profound statement here*

  4. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Obama slams Holocaust deniers at concentration camp

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Libman View Post
    I guess he'd call me a "Holocaust Denier" as well, just because I believe in unlimited free speech rights and pursue an objective view of history without any government bias. A lot of lies were spread for Roosevelt's and especially for Stalin's benefit, and a lot of Soviet atrocities were blamed on Germany instead.
    Stalin was democidal as well.

    Many other things we are taught about World War II are total lies - that the Japanese initiated aggression against USA first,
    They did, engaging in an economic boycott is not an act of aggression nor an act of war it is the right of every sovereign nation. Would the U.S. have been justified in responding to the Arab oil embargo through military force?

    that nuking them was necessary,
    It was, the planned invasion would have cost far far more lives both Japanese and American, the Japanese still hadn't surrendered even after the first bomb was dropped nor after the fire bombings which killed far more Japanese.

    [quote]

    that Hitler wanted to exterminate all Jews no matter what,
    I suggest reading the text of the Wannsee Conference.

    He did that his suspicions about a communist "fifth column" in Germany were unfounded, etc, etc, etc.
    That there was a Jewish plot to undermine Germany was certainly unfounded.

  5. #35
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Past the edge of the universe, through the singularity, and out the other side.
    Last Seen
    09-01-10 @ 05:23 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,324

    Re: Obama slams Holocaust deniers at concentration camp

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Libman View Post
    Japan didn't start that war,
    Yes they did actually, it's called Pearl Harbor you may have heard of it.

    and they were always in pursuit of a way of finishing it, especially as the pathetic remains of their navy were being blown to smithereens by 1945. They had only one major condition for their surrender: let them keep their emperor,
    That is a complete load of crap they wanted to maintain the rule of the military class completely debunked by historical documents:

    A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan, the military increasingly determined to fight despite all costs and odds and the civilian leadership seeking a way to negotiate an end to the war. Further complicating the decision was the fact that no cabinet could exist without the representative of the Imperial Japanese Army. This meant that the Army and the Navy could veto any decision by having its Minister resign, thus making it the most powerful posts on the SWC. In early August 1945 the cabinet was equally split between those who advocated an end to the war on one condition, the preservation of the Kokutai, and those who insisted on three other conditions : leave disarmament and demobilization to Imperial General Headquarters, no occupation and delegation to Japanese government of the punishment of war criminals[31] The "hawks" consisted of General Korechika Anami, General Yoshijiro Umezu and Admiral Soemu Toyoda and were led by Anami. The "doves" consisted of Prime Minister Kantaro Suzuki, Naval Minister Mitsumasa Yonai and Minister of Foreign Affairs Shigenori Togo and were led by Togo.[28] Under special permission of the Emperor Shōwa (Hirohito), the president of the Privy council, Kiichiro Hiranuma, was also a member of the imperial conference. For him, the preservation of the Kokutai implied not only that of the Imperial institution but also the continuation of the emperor's reign.[32]

    It has sometimes been argued that Japan would have surrendered if simply guaranteed that the Emperor would be allowed to continue as formal head of state. However, Japanese diplomatic messages regarding a possible Soviet mediation — intercepted through Magic, and made available to Allied leaders — have been interpreted by some historians to mean that "the dominant militarists insisted on preservation of the old militaristic order in Japan, the one in which they ruled."[29] They also faced potential death sentences in trials for Japanese war crimes if they surrendered.[11] This was also what occurred in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East and other tribunals.

    Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    11-01-09 @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    829

    Re: Obama slams Holocaust deniers at concentration camp

    Quote Originally Posted by CaptainCourtesy View Post
    I'm curious. What revisionist source are you getting your information from that identifies that the US started the war against Japan?
    It takes two governments to start a war - and that's two more than there should be. In absence of governments (all governments, including any would-be warlords or mafia bosses trying to fill the power vacuum), self-interest would drive individuals to empower themselves, thus causing for the power vacuum to be filled by property owners who find it in their best interest to not initiate aggression against each-other. Natural rights emerge naturally, with no centralized force being necessary.

    It's no wonder that the nation that has suffered the least amount of damage during World War II -- Switzerland -- was also the most decentralized and had the highest rate of individual firearm ownership. If Hitler couldn't even invade his tiny mountain neighbor, the notion of anyone being able to successfully invade North America is downright laughable! Every war the United States has ever fought in was a premeditated expansionist tactic, and its involvement in WW2 is no exception.

    Some might claim that America first initiated aggression against Japan when its warships entered the Tokyo harbor in 1853 and threatened to come back with a lot more warships unless the Japanese do what they're told. I personally would like to err on the site of the Americans in that dispute - many Japanese people wanted to trade with the Americans, but their tyrannical government stood in their way, so the Americans were merely protecting their business interests. (Too bad we don't do this anymore - the same philosophy would have toppled the likes of Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-il overnight.)

    Some might also claim that the West's aggression against China and its imperialism over the Philippines, Hawaii, and many other Asian nations gave Japan a moral right to become a colonial power in Asia, sort of like the "I can steal your dog if I'll treat it better" mentality, and many people in those countries looked favorably on that possibility. I don't see that as an invitation for Japanese imperialism - two wrongs don't make a right. In China, Japan's crimes against civilians are very well documented, but the same can be said about the British involvement in India (and many of their crimes have escaped the scrutiny of history, because, well, you know - "history is written by the victors"). Japan was a part of the Eight-Nation Alliance, and as its economy grew it was able to take a bigger slice - that didn't make it any more or any less moral than any other colonial power. America itself didn't grow from sea to shining sea by respecting human rights ya know!

    Japan was very successful in its colonization of its Asian neighbors, in part due to effective use of soft power (i.e. it was more popular than its European competitors), and by the mid-1920s America was becoming quite jealous, supporting anti-Japanese resistance whenever and wherever it could, like secretly supplying American planes and American pilots to help them. The situation continued to intensify, with American assets covertly carrying out terrorist operations against Japanese targets in China / Manchuria. But apparently that doesn't count as an act of war, just more imperial hanky-panky.

    America has positioned itself for war, never missing an opportunity to provoke their one Asian competitor for the military dominance of Asia. As Smedley Butler wrote in his book: "The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles."

    Then came the American act of war that I cannot rationalize - the oil embargo against Japan. America just reached half-way across the world and prevented one nation from trading with all others! That left Japan with only two options: defend its empire or grind to a screeching halt!

    And when America had dropped its breeches and left itself wide open in Pearl Harbor - how could Japan possibly resist?
    Last edited by Alex Libman; 06-08-09 at 01:27 AM.

  7. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    11-01-09 @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    829

    Re: Obama slams Holocaust deniers at concentration camp

    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Stalin was democidal as well.
    He was a pragmatist acting in his government's (but not the people's) interest, no different from Hitler or FDR. In fact, one could argue that FDR & Co has caused more damage to humanity than Hitler or Stalin, because the latter two have much less on-going impact on history, while FDR's legacy continues to kill to the present day.

    FDR has prolonged the Great Depression, and his legacy has led to his mistakes now being repeated with the Bailout Bubble - all that economic loss will shave off quite a bit of time from the life expectancy of every human being on earth, often making the difference between life and death!


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    They did, engaging in an economic boycott is not an act of aggression nor an act of war it is the right of every sovereign nation. Would the U.S. have been justified in responding to the Arab oil embargo through military force?
    You're spinning so hard that plugging you up to a generator would cut the world-wide electricity costs in half!

    The word "boycott" is used to describe one's individual choices as a consumer, while what the U.S. government did was a use of the armed forces to initiate aggression against a specific nation and/or its trading partners. You try to sell oil to Japan - boom, you're dead! To say that's not war is like saying murder by strangulation isn't murder because you've merely deprived your victim of air!

    And the 1967 Oil Embargo is something entirely different - that conflict started in the 19th century and has reached total war after the "the Catastrophe of 1948". There's no question that the Zionists / Israel are the aggressor in that war.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    It was, the planned invasion would have cost far far more lives both Japanese and American, the Japanese still hadn't surrendered even after the first bomb was dropped nor after the fire bombings which killed far more Japanese.
    Yes, Japan must be under the total control of the United States, no other option is acceptable. Manifest Destiny, right, I get it. It's even written into the Declaration of Independence - "oceans be damned, everything to the West belongs to us"! Simply leaving other peoples alone is not an option!


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    I suggest reading the text of the Wannsee Conference.
    I have. I know that Germany has exterminated millions of Jews, including some of my relatives. But that conference didn't take place in 1933; it took place in 1942, after America has entered the war, and the invasion of the Soviet Union started showing proof that Germany's optimism for a quick victory was very much unwarranted.

    Hitler wanted a "racially pure" Germany free of "undesirable" cultural influences, and it makes a whole lot more economic sense to ransom the "undesirables" out rather than just kill them. He initially thought the Jewish prisoners would be an asset, a bargaining chip for their wealthy and politically-influential relatives abroad, but if other nations weren't willing to pay to rescue them, they became a liability - keeping millions of prisoners alive while the nation is being invaded from both sides and suffers fuel and food shortages is not easy.

    America's unwillingness to rescue those Jews, even turning back ships filled with refugees, are some of the things that mainstream historians have been trying to de-emphasize. Some stories get through (ex. MS St Louis), while most do not. The reality is that the U.S. government has contributed to the Holocaust more than it has helped end it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    That there was a Jewish plot to undermine Germany was certainly unfounded.
    Just as there was no Communist plot to undermine Czarist Russia. Oops.

    Sure, not all Jews were Communists, but a large fraction of the leading Communists were Jews. And not all Japanese Americans were loyal to the emperor either - except of course there were fewer of them, and America had the economic resources to lock them up more humane conditions than the German equivalent.


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    Yes they did actually, it's called Pearl Harbor you may have heard of it.
    Ah, right, typical American public school education. "Before Pearl Harbor, which no one could have seen coming, America was just sitting there in Hawaii, one of the 13 original colonies, and minding its own business, not even thinking about colonizing anyone half a world away"...


    Quote Originally Posted by Agent Ferris View Post
    That is a complete load of crap they wanted to maintain the rule of the military class completely debunked by historical documents:
    "Have been interpreted by some historians" my foot, Japan was never a threat to the United States, and the U.S. could have ended that war at any time - or not have started it in the first place. Little nations don't attack big nations out of the blue, they only do it in self-defense!
    Last edited by Alex Libman; 06-08-09 at 03:16 AM.

  8. #38
    Global Moderator
    I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

    CaptainCourtesy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 09:38 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    152,692

    Re: Obama slams Holocaust deniers at concentration camp

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Libman View Post
    It takes two governments to start a war - and that's two more than there should be. In absence of governments (all governments, including any would-be warlords or mafia bosses trying to fill the power vacuum), self-interest would drive individuals to empower themselves, thus causing for the power vacuum to be filled by property owners who find it in their best interest to not initiate aggression against each-other. Natural rights emerge naturally, with no centralized force being necessary.

    It's no wonder that the nation that has suffered the least amount of damage during World War II -- Switzerland -- was also the most decentralized and had the highest rate of individual firearm ownership. If Hitler couldn't even invade his tiny mountain neighbor, the notion of anyone being able to successfully invade North America is downright laughable! Every war the United States has ever fought in was a premeditated expansionist tactic, and its involvement in WW2 is no exception.

    Some might claim that America first initiated aggression against Japan when its warships entered the Tokyo harbor in 1853 and threatened to come back with a lot more warships unless the Japanese do what they're told. I personally would like to err on the site of the Americans in that dispute - many Japanese people wanted to trade with the Americans, but their tyrannical government stood in their way, so the Americans were merely protecting their business interests. (Too bad we don't do this anymore - the same philosophy would have toppled the likes of Hugo Chavez and Kim Jong-il overnight.)

    Some might also claim that the West's aggression against China and its imperialism over the Philippines, Hawaii, and many other Asian nations gave Japan a moral right to become a colonial power in Asia, sort of like the "I can steal your dog if I'll treat it better" mentality, and many people in those countries looked favorably on that possibility. I don't see that as an invitation for Japanese imperialism - two wrongs don't make a right. In China, Japan's crimes against civilians are very well documented, but the same can be said about the British involvement in India (and many of their crimes have escaped the scrutiny of history, because, well, you know - "history is written by the victors"). Japan was a part of the Eight-Nation Alliance, and as its economy grew it was able to take a bigger slice - that didn't make it any more or any less moral than any other colonial power. America itself didn't grow from sea to shining sea by respecting human rights ya know!

    Japan was very successful in its colonization of its Asian neighbors, in part due to effective use of soft power (i.e. it was more popular than its European competitors), and by the mid-1920s America was becoming quite jealous, supporting anti-Japanese resistance whenever and wherever it could, like secretly supplying American planes and American pilots to help them. The situation continued to intensify, with American assets covertly carrying out terrorist operations against Japanese targets in China / Manchuria. But apparently that doesn't count as an act of war, just more imperial hanky-panky.

    America has positioned itself for war, never missing an opportunity to provoke their one Asian competitor for the military dominance of Asia. As Smedley Butler wrote in his book: "The Japanese, a proud people, of course will be pleased beyond expression to see the United States fleet so close to Nippon's shores. Even as pleased as would be the residents of California were they to dimly discern through the morning mist, the Japanese fleet playing at war games off Los Angeles."

    Then came the American act of war that I cannot rationalize - the oil embargo against Japan. America just reached half-way across the world and prevented one nation from trading with all others! That left Japan with only two options: defend its empire or grind to a screeching halt!

    And when America had dropped its breeches and left itself wide open in Pearl Harbor - how could Japan possibly resist?
    This is all well written and very interesting. It does not, however, show how the US initiated aggression with Japan.
    "Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

    ====||:-D

    Quote Originally Posted by Wiseone View Post
    This is what I hate about politics the most, it turns people in snobbish egotistical self righteous dicks who allow their political beliefs, partisan attitudes, and 'us vs. them' mentality, to force them to deny reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Navy Pride View Post
    You can't paint everone with the same brush.......It does not work tht way.


    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    See with you around Captain we don't even have to make arguments, as you already know everything .
    Quote Originally Posted by CriticalThought View Post
    Had you been born elsewhere or at a different time you may very well have chosen a different belief system.
    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    It a person has faith they dont need to convince another of it, and when a non believer is not interested in listening to the word of the lord, " you shake the dust from your sandels and move on"

  9. #39
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    11-01-09 @ 01:19 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    829

    Re: Obama slams Holocaust deniers at concentration camp

    I guess I should have put ...

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex Libman View Post
    Then came the American act of war that I cannot rationalize - the oil embargo against Japan.
    ... in bold.


    Actually FDR & Friends had an 8-step plan to provoke Japan.

    There are lots of good essays about this on Lew Rockwell's site.

  10. #40
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: Obama slams Holocaust deniers at concentration camp

    That the Americans are far from saints in the matter is certain, although it is often avoided, but I still think it was Japan that started expanding first and Japan that ultimately made the first strike.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •